Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 08/27/2016 11:45:57 AM:
> From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>
> To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> Date: 08/27/2016 11:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ovn-controller: add quiet mode
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 07:23:22PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 08/26/2016 04:36:20 PM:
> >
> > > From: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> > > To: dev@openvswitch.org
> > > Cc: b...@ovn.org, Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS
> > > Date: 08/26/2016 04:36 PM
> > > Subject: [PATCH v3] ovn-controller: add quiet mode
> > >
> > > As discussed in [1], what the incremental processing code
> > > actually accomplished was that the ovn-controller would
> > > be "quiet" and not burn CPU when things weren't changing.
> > > This patch set recreates this state by calculating whether
> > > changes have occured that would require a full calculation
> > > to be performed.
> > >
> > > This commit depends on f5d916cb ("ovn-controller:
> > > Back out incremental processing")
> > >
> > > [1] http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-August/078272.html
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > Not quite sure why this was marked as Not Applicable in patch
> > works, as it sill applies cleanly to v6 of the remove incremental
> > processing patch, so I've put it back as new...
>
> I couldn't get it to apply. I'll try again.
>
Ok... in the meantime, I realized that I wanted to unpersist some
of the physical.c items in that follow on patch set, so there is a v7
of remove incremental processing (v7 patched a memory leak I made)
and a v4 of the quite mode patch, which should apply cleanly to
v7. I'm currently working on the "unpersist address sets" follow
on patch and once it clears memory testing, I'll post it...
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
